By: David Paul KuhnMarch 13, 2008 11:49 AM EST

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.

The situation in Iraq remains fluid, of course. A surge in violence or in troop deaths could lead to rapid fluctuations in public opinion. But as the war nears its fifth year, the steady upturn in the public mood stands to alter the dynamics of races up and down the ballot.

The repercussions will be most acutely felt in the presidential contest. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton remain committed to a staggered pullout, while Republican John McCain holds steadfast in his support for the Bush administration’s military surge.'

In recent years, election results have tracked perceptions about the progress of the war in Iraq. The Democratic wave in the 2006 congressional elections correlated to a low point in the public’s view of the war. The resurgence of McCain’s candidacy also tracks the decrease in U.S. fatalities in Iraq. Monthly troop deaths have dropped by about two-thirds since the summer of 2007, according to Department of Defense records.

Democrats’ resolute support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces may soon position them at odds with independent voters, in particular, a constituency they need to retake the White House.

Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should “keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized,” according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico’s request.

Senior foreign policy aides to Clinton and Obama said in interviews that their candidates have no intention of reconsidering their pledges to withdraw troops from Iraq, despite the waning of public opposition.

As recently as Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., Clinton reiterated her pledge to “end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.” She added, as she has for months, that she would “carefully and responsibly” start the withdrawal of those troops within 60 days of taking office.

“There is no military solution,” Clinton is prone to say, a sentiment echoed by Obama. Obama has also proposed an end date for “removing all combat brigades” from Iraq.

The uptick in public support is a promising sign for Republican candidates who have been bludgeoned over the Bush administration’s war policies. But no candidate stands to gain more than McCain.

“How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?” asked Michael O’Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war’s outset.

“Thinking about where we were at the time of the congressional elections, it’s ironic that the Iraq issue could actually be the one that most favors the Republican and most other issues — including most foreign policy issues — could most favor the Democrats,” O’Hanlon added. “Yet Democrats keep wanting to fight the Iraq debate.”

The positions taken by Obama and Clinton reflect the majority sentiment in their party: Seven in 10 Democrats continue to believe the war in Iraq is going poorly. Only about a quarter of Democrats support maintaining troop levels until “the situation has stabilized,” according to Pew polling data.

Views of the war in Iraq have long varied depending upon party affiliation, unlike during the Vietnam War. Although even Democratic discontent has ebbed for the first time in more than a year — 29 percent now support keeping troops in, an increase of 8 percentage points since last summer — foreign policy advisers to both candidates dispute the idea that Democrats are in the unenviable position of disagreeing with the majority of Americans over whether the war in Iraq can succeed.

“We have seen at great cost here that the surge has resulted in a reduction of violence. That’s indisputable,” said a top Obama foreign policy adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But we have not seen any of the political progress that will be necessary to have that long-term stability.

“[Obama] believes the best way to induce change is to have this strategic redeployment,” the adviser added.

While Democrats increasingly constitute the bulk of voters who support the withdrawal of troops, the public shift of opinion overall has been dramatic. As many voters now believe that the war is going “well” as “not well” — 48 percent each, according to Pew.

Pew also found that 49 percent favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible, while 47 percent say the troops should stay in until the situation stabilizes — statistical parity between the two positions.

Late February polling conducted by CBS News has also shown that the public view of the war is better than at any point since August 2006. CBS recently found that 43 percent of the country believes the war is going “well” — less than Pew found but still double the level of last June.

Democrats remain in step with the public mood on the question of the decision to go to war. Pew and CBS have found that a majority of Americans, including independents, continue to believe that the choice to wage war with Iraq was “wrong” — a figure that has held for years.

McCain is betting, however, that the public will view the war through a forward-looking lens. For months, he has argued that Democrats intend to “retreat” in Iraq and ensure failure.

The public may soon come to view that as “a correct narrative,” said O’Hanlon, a Democrat whose views on the war have made him the bête noire of many in the anti-war liberal base.

Perhaps as a result of the uptick in support for the war or his own military record, McCain is well-positioned to retake the party’s traditional advantage on national security issues.

Almost half of registered voters now believe it is “very likely” that McCain would be an “effective commander in chief,” according to CBS polling. Less than one-quarter said the same of Obama and Clinton.

In addition, CBS found that a clear majority of Americans were “confident” that McCain could “handle an international crisis” — 56 percent said so for McCain, 47 percent for Obama and only 39 percent for Clinton.

The McCain campaign has signaled plans to continue highlighting his differences with Democrats over Iraq policy. Meanwhile, Democrats plan to continue to frame McCain as a central player in the president’s Iraq policy who is likely to continue in the same direction.

“Sen. McCain is clearly going to try to depict the Democrat, whoever it is, as cut and run,” the Clinton adviser said. “And Sen. Clinton, or whoever is the Democratic nominee, is clearly going to try to depict Sen. McCain as one who would stay there for centuries.”

For the time being, however, McCain can claim that roughly half of the public does not support a troop withdrawal — a first since the 2008 presidential race began.

More proof that America HATES democrats

Part of the increasing support may be due to the attention being diverted from the war because of the primaries and the political situation. The news from the war front typically involves terrorlst attacks within Iraq, and those have been on the decline. Maybe they are running out of people willing to blow themselves up.

Have you considered what waging this war has cost the US in terms of its reputation in the world? How do you think the American policies are viewed from a foreign perspective?

Don't forget the results of the last election, when the country sent a very loud message to Washington with the ousting of many Republicans in favor of Democrats. I hardly think America hates Democrats.

Meh, excuses excuses.

We are winning the war, less of our troops are dying, the surge worked, and violence is down, yet democrats ( and all leftys ) still want us to lose the war.

Rick Damone Jr wrote:Meh, excuses excuses.

We are winning the war, less of our troops are dying, the surge worked, and violence is down, yet democrats ( and all leftys ) still want us to lose the war.

We are winning? What constitutes winning, less deaths? Less suicide bombs? How does the average Iraqi think about all this? Why is the average Iraqi better off today than he was under Sadam? It's not an easy question is it?

rn79870 wrote: Maybe they are running out of people willing to blow themselves up.

Some of the lag in Iraq may be due to the cease fire put in place via Moqtada Sadr and not necessarily related to additional troops.

rn79870 wrote:Don't forget the results of the last election, when the country sent a very loud message to Washington with the ousting of many Republicans in favor of Democrats. I hardly think America hates Democrats.

The election of Democrats could have simply been the American people being tired of the Republicans not being fiscally conservative, thus putting in Democrats as punishment. I do agree that America does not hate Democrats in general. Most of us just hate the far-left leaning Democrats like Pelosi and Dean (and the far-right, non-fiscally conservative Republicans)

Rick Damone Jr wrote:Meh, excuses excuses.

We are winning the war, less of our troops are dying, the surge worked, and violence is down, yet democrats ( and all leftys ) still want us to lose the war.

We should have never gone into Iraq to begin with.1st reason: Mr. Bush said we were going in there to get weapons of mass destruction. We didn't find any so we changed it up and said we were going in there to "free" the Iraqi people.

2nd Reason: It IS NOT our mother fcuking duty to free anyone. If a country doesn't like what the gov't is doing or needs a drastic change, let THOSE peoples of that country do it for themselves. ITS CALLED CIVIL WAR. Fcuk this shyt! What did we do? We had a Civil War of our own that cost SEVERAL lives. No one came in and did it for us. Yes we had HELP. And thats what we need to provide to the Iraqis IF THEY WANT our help!

I love America but really hate her policies about foreign affairs. WE ARE NOT THE FCUKING GLOBAL POLICE! We need to stop acting like it.

wahrheitoderpflicht wrote:I love America but really hate her policies about foreign affairs. WE ARE NOT THE FCUKING GLOBAL POLICE! We need to stop acting like it.

Then talk to Obama as well. He has already made comments about Palesine and Iran AND he is pressing to push forth additional taxes for Global Welfare to be handled via the UN. I do find it comical that other countries think it is OK to go around the UN for their own financial reasons but the US get char-grilled for doing what may be the right thing for us (even when we have UN support). It's not like the intel from other countries was different from ours nor that the ability to go to war with Iraq was given by Congress. Hindsight is 20/20 but I would not expect a 20yo to understand that. Bush lied and people died, right?

Oh, and Rick Damone Jr, follow the rules of this forum. Personal attacks will not be allowed. Consider this your last warning.

This goes to everyone. This forum is for discussion and not screaming, shouting nor personal insults. If this kind of behavior becomes the norm around here I will simply remove the whole political forum.

I think its very interesting in that poll results reflects what's happening to the troops. If they're dying in many numbers, its bad, but now that numbers are way down (for whatever reason) its starting to turn good.

For all of those visiting this thread, I would like to recommend a book. Its called Containment by Ian Shapiro. He neither advocates for the Bush Doctrine or for what the Democrats are calling for. Both are stupid. He goes a different route. He calls for a modern version of Cold War policy for the war on terror. Think about it, in the Cold War we were fighting Communism. Not something you can really fight. Now we're fighting terrorism, something you can't really fight in the same sense as Communism. However, you can defeat it through the policy of containment. Its also a good read in general for those who like political books...it dives into current policy and what Cold War policy was, failures of both, successes of both.

smockers83 wrote:I think its very interesting in that poll results reflects what's happening to the troops. If they're dying in many numbers, its bad, but now that numbers are way down (for whatever reason) its starting to turn good.

People expect to see results. When the only thing you hear are people screaming that Bush lied or the military is raping people or that we are losing the war, then support drops. How many times these comments been repeated over and over?

What does everyone think about the anti-war protesters? Code Pink, Answer, etc? Seems they are getting more and more violent in order to try and FORCE people to pay them attention:

http://hotair.com/archives/200...icago/

Crashing an Easter Service and squirting fake blood on the people having services? Sponsored by a pro-Palestinian organization? Seems every major anti-war movement is either sponsored by a communist or socialist-style organization. WTF is wrong with these people?

When your actions make Fred Phelps and his band of wachos look sane by comparison, you've done something!

Guesso...

Screw the protesters.

In fact, screw ANY and ALL protesters, regardless of what you're protesting. There are better ways to accomplish change, and wandering about with some insipid sign is simply lazy and retarded.

Also, we ARE the "world's policemen", whether we like it or not. With great power comes great responsibility, and isolationism is a sure way to guarantee destruction of our own freedoms.

If the people who laid their lives on the line during D-Day could see what we've become, they'd hang their heads in shame.

Freedom is more valuable than anything. Try living without it and report back to me.

AZhitman wrote:In fact, screw ANY and ALL protesters, regardless of what you're protesting. There are better ways to accomplish change

Such as?

I enjoy protesters. They make my commute and lunch hour interesting. Once, I stepped off the subway and saw a naked PETA chick in a cage.

AZhitman wrote:If the people who laid their lives on the line during D-Day could see what we've become, they'd hang their heads in shame.

To be honest, I think they'd understand what we're going through politically. The country was very divided before PH happened. Just about every generation of Americans have fought wars in the same manner...chip on the shoulder to justify going to battle.

ishkabibble wrote:
Such as?

Such as getting involved.

Such as actually DOING something that makes a difference.

Such as engaging in the political and social processes of the nation.

Such as putting that energy to good use, rather than standing around with a sign like a hand-wringing putz.

The protesters are at least doing something. Most people are complacent and do absolutely nothing. I do feel that a lot of protesting is misguided and therefore ineffective, though.

What are they doing besides spewing hate and, in most cases, a one-sided view? Beyond certain slogans, a large number these people have no clue as to what the issues is nor who the group they are supporting really stands for. The majority of these groups are anti-American and preach communism and socialism.

Whether you agree with them or not, they have a right to do it. A large number of Americans, period have no clue as to what any issues are nor what the group they are supporting really stands for.

Yep, all protests are ineffective and unamerican.

People like Malkin don't spew hate and present solely a one-sided view? I noticed you like to link to her and her blog, Hot Air.

No offense, but where the hell was Code Pink when the United States of America under the Commander in Chief Bill Clinton sent American troops into a Sovereign nation (Serbia) to 'liberate' Kosovo, bombed the **** out of Belgrade and caused a humanitarian situation in Eastern Europe? We took a piece of land from a Sovereign Nation, sliced it up backed a terror group (KLA) and then was one of the first to recognize it as a country. If another nation had done that to a state in the United States, we would have be indignant.

ishkabibble wrote:Whether you agree with them or not, they have a right to do it. A large number of Americans, period have no clue as to what any issues are nor what the group they are supporting really stands for.

Yep, all protests are ineffective and unamerican.

People like Malkin don't spew hate and present solely a one-sided view? I noticed you like to link to her and her blog, Hot Air.

Go ahead and put words in my mouth.

Whom do I like linking to?

Cold_Zero wrote:No offense, but where the hell was Code Pink when the United States of America under the Commander in Chief Bill Clinton sent American troops into a Sovereign nation (Serbia) to 'liberate' Kosovo, bombed the **** out of Belgrade and caused a humanitarian situation in Eastern Europe? We took a piece of land from a Sovereign Nation, sliced it up backed a terror group (KLA) and then was one of the first to recognize it as a country. If another nation had done that to a state in the United States, we would have be indignant.

That does not matter because he's not president anymore.

audtatious wrote:
Go ahead and put words in my mouth.

Whom do I like linking to?

How am I putting words into your mouth?

The discussion is about all protestors.

You've linked to Michelle Malkin's blog and Hot Air (another of her creations). Here, for example: zerothread/324126 . She's little more than a partisan hack, albeit more intelligent than Ann Coulter.

ishkabibble wrote:
How am I putting words into your mouth?

ishkabibble wrote:Yep, all protests are ineffective and unamerican.

^^ putting words in my mouth

ishkabibble wrote:You've linked to Michelle Malkin's blog and Hot Air (another of her creations). Here, for example: zerothread/324126 . She's little more than a partisan hack, albeit more intelligent than Ann Coulter.

ishkabibble wrote:I noticed you like to link to her and her blog

Me linking her blog or articles twice means nothing. She makes valid points even if you do not agree. I could just as easily find others with the same viewpoints. Ann Coulter makes some valid viewpoints as well tho she is a close to a right-wing extremist in some cases.

audtatious wrote:^^ putting words in my mouth

If you look at Greg's and your comments, you'll find that my response was appropriate.

audtatious wrote:Me linking her blog or articles twice means nothing. She makes valid points even if you do not agree. I could just as easily find others with the same viewpoints. Ann Coulter makes some valid viewpoints as well tho she is a close to a right-wing extremist in some cases.

Consider citing more objective sources. Any source is going to be accused of some bias, but linking to people like Malkin, Coulter, Bill O, etc. just gets a person written off as a member of the right wing extremest "camp".

Anyway, like I said, Malkin spews hate and presents almost entirely a one-sided view. She's often made comments that smack of fascism.

Coulter is the Howard Stern of right wing partisan hackery. Any of her valid viewpoints are lost in the sea of her "shock jock" partisan hackery.

ishkabibble wrote:
If you look at Greg's and your comments, you'll find that my response was appropriate.

Then you may want to respond to the individual person as I did not make a blanket statement about protesters (realize I said "large number" and "majority of these groups")

ishkabibble wrote:Consider citing more objective sources. Any source is going to be accused of some bias, but linking to people like Malkin, Coulter, Bill O, etc. just gets a person written off as a member of the right wing extremest "camp".

What is objective? Mainstream media?

If Malkin, Coulter, Bill O, etc. actually post something I agree with then I will quote them for discussion. I won't quote what I see as rhetoric or BS (tho I may chuckle). I call BS as I see it and will call it on both sides as needed.

audtatious wrote:What is objective? Mainstream media?

For the most part, no. Not so much because they lean one way or the other, but that they present sound bites without underlying facts.

Nothing can be completely objective. There are a few blogs which lean one way or the other, but present the issues and underlying facts fairly even-handedly. Talking Points Memo, for example.

audtatious wrote:If Malkin, Coulter, Bill O, etc. actually post something I agree with then I will quote them for discussion. I won't quote what I see as rhetoric or BS (tho I may chuckle). I call BS as I see it and will call it on both sides as needed.

I feel the hate media on both sides just make the country more divided and should be ignored. Citing someone like Coulter is not going to win any progressives over to the other side.

Valid is valid, altho some viewpoints are simply easier to dismiss from the other side due to who is starting them.

AZhitman wrote:Also, we ARE the "world's policemen", whether we like it or not. With great power comes great responsibility, and isolationism is a sure way to guarantee destruction of our own freedoms.

I disagree with this for a number of reasons, chiefly because it implies that simply because we have the might to do the job that we also have the right to make the decisions, and that sounds awfully authoritarian to me. I don't have a problem with there being a "world police", but it needs to be multilateral.

WWII is a poor example to use in reference to 21st century events as it represented a situation wherein the good of the world at large meant largely the same thing as the good of the United States. I don't think this has been the case for quite awhile now.

Oh and your comments on protesting are spot-f**king-on. Few activities constitute more of a waste.